Author Topic: 109 Flaps  (Read 8231 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
109 Flaps
« Reply #75 on: January 20, 2006, 12:07:10 PM »
ROC and Zoom add. We have no specific "ZOOM" measures, tables, data or about anything. Ok Hurl yourself upwards with mass and speed, and when it approaches stall, approach your climbing speed and keep climbing.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
109 Flaps
« Reply #76 on: January 20, 2006, 12:12:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus

And a quiz. What WW2 prop fighter achieved the highest Machnumber in a prolonged dive, where and when?


The one which was equipped with the least exact measurment system and where the results were calculated with the least exact correction

niklas

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
109 Flaps
« Reply #77 on: January 20, 2006, 12:39:00 PM »
Anybody ever seen a picture of that Spitfire?

Making that dive was last thing that airframe ever did and the pilot found God on the way down.  I think "thankful to be alive" and "very lucky" are some of the words found in the description.

If you check out the POH dive speeds the Spitfire was rated too, it was unremarkable.  Both German fighters could outdive it substantially at lower altitudes.

All the best,

Crumpp

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
109 Flaps
« Reply #78 on: January 20, 2006, 03:58:53 PM »
And yet, zeros out dive p47s, spitfires can stay in a dive (and CLOSE) on a 190A.

AH has dives and zooms messed up. I know HT says "If one number is off they're all off, so if all the numbers are right they all must be right" -- but something else in his flight engine is messing this zoom/dive up. Others have supposed that perhaps it's due to drag. This is possible. I think there's just a flaw in the logic of the game engine. It happens. However, nobody's LOOKING for it, because "all the numbers are right, so everything must be spot on". Instead of trying to replicate real flight, the AH2 flight engine has its own self-contained world, in which you feed numbers and out it spits a plane's status. Even if the numbers are all self-checking that doesn't mean the system is infallible.

This is my opinion. Don't jump on my back. I know I can't do better. I know how hard it is to make a flight model, but this is my firm belief: this flight model is flawed and produces unrealistic zooms and dives.

Nobody's going to ever waste time checking 50,000 lines of code for a logical error, and nobody's going to quit over it, but it's a large detraction (in my mind) from the game's quality.

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
109 Flaps
« Reply #79 on: January 20, 2006, 04:17:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
Spit XI?
Read about one that hit mach 0.94 (ish). 606mph in a 45 degree dive.
Airframe was OK but it broke the prop, had to glide in to a landing.
Farnborough 1944.


Actually, I believe it was a Spitfire PR. Mk XIX and the estimated (guessed at) Mach number was .92. This was not a designed, controlled test and there was no measurement equipment. This dive resulted from pilot error and the estimated speeds / mach can not be substantiated. IIRC the 'dive' began at 40 or 50k FT. The pilot of the Spit reported seeing a 'milky look' as the air moved over the wings.

The Spitfire Mk IX pilot’s notes quote a limiting Mach number of 0.85. This is a 'safe' number and similar to most other of WW2 fighters.

Here's a link to Pushing the envelope with test pilot Herb Fisher, (Widewing's site)

Snipped :

Quote
Despite having a propeller that was designed to be more efficient at these speeds, the fact remained that the drag rise across the prop was so great that it functioned like a giant disk shaped air brake. Fisher had proved beyond any doubt that all previous claims of exceeding the speed of sound while diving a prop driven aircraft were untrue. There is little doubt that the pilots who reported speeds in excess of Mach 1 were honestly and accurately reporting what they has seen on their air speed indicator. However, due to the extreme rate of descent, the pressure differential in the static pressure airspeed indicator lags far behind the actual altitude of the aircraft. Air speed indicators of the era were not designed to cope with descents that could exceed 40,000 feet per minute. This difference between outside pressure and that within the system would indicate wildly ambitious speeds. These pilots had simply been fooled. When we stop and consider that the ultra-sleek P-80A Shooting Star jet fighter was never able to exceed Mach .94, how can anyone believe that a prop driven fighter could even come close?


Keep clinging to those fairy tales...

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
109 Flaps
« Reply #80 on: January 20, 2006, 10:09:29 PM »
Theres seperate incidents getting confused here (I'm guilty also)

1) Yes the XIX in the emergency dive, estimates from 0.94 - 0.96 mach.
2) Farnborough high speed dive trials, up to 0.92 mach.

1 - Anecdotal - yes, 2 was measured.

But considering theres anecdotal evidence that the 262 may have surpassed Mach 1, and also the prototype F-86 (both prior to Yeagers Mach 1 record), take it as you will.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2006, 10:30:14 PM by Kev367th »
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
109 Flaps
« Reply #81 on: January 20, 2006, 10:40:54 PM »
There were several claims of Mach 1 or near Mach 1 from the Amis and the RAF but as it says in the quote I provided above:

Quote
Despite having a propeller that was designed to be more efficient at these speeds, the fact remained that the drag rise across the prop was so great that it functioned like a giant disk shaped air brake. Fisher had proved beyond any doubt that all previous claims of exceeding the speed of sound while diving a prop driven aircraft were untrue. There is little doubt that the pilots who reported speeds in excess of Mach 1 were honestly and accurately reporting what they has seen on their air speed indicator. However, due to the extreme rate of descent, the pressure differential in the static pressure airspeed indicator lags far behind the actual altitude of the aircraft. Air speed indicators of the era were not designed to cope with descents that could exceed 40,000 feet per minute. This difference between outside pressure and that within the system would indicate wildly ambitious speeds. These pilots had simply been fooled. When we stop and consider that the ultra-sleek P-80A Shooting Star jet fighter was never able to exceed Mach .94, how can anyone believe that a prop driven fighter could even come close?


If the P-80 could not exceed mach .94 then a Spitfire, or P-51, or P-47 sure couldn't.

Offline hogenbor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 677
      • http://www.lookupinwonder.nl
109 Flaps
« Reply #82 on: January 21, 2006, 02:47:27 AM »
I can remember a heated thread where people stated that it was physically impossible even for a 262 to break the sound barrier. I am not in a position to comment on that as I don't understand the physics nearly well enough.

The myth that a F-86 broke the sound barrier first (before the X-1) is more credible, but it seems that Bell and Yeager don't want their thunder stolen, even after all these years. But if I'm not mistaken the F-86 was capable of it, in a dive of course.

Offline Glasses

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
109 Flaps
« Reply #83 on: January 21, 2006, 04:04:18 AM »
It's no myth the AF changed it to the first man to break the  sound barrier in lvl flight if I remember for the X-1.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
109 Flaps
« Reply #84 on: January 21, 2006, 04:46:20 AM »
First person that crossed the barrier with certanity was E-Walsh.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
109 Flaps
« Reply #85 on: January 21, 2006, 08:22:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
There were several claims of Mach 1 or near Mach 1 from the Amis and the RAF but as it says in the quote I provided above:
 


Also some german pilots claimed that they exceeded 1000km/h in dives with the 109, in the 190 on a regular basis. Afaik this was the reason why the 109 dive tests were made.

niklas
« Last Edit: January 21, 2006, 09:53:34 AM by niklas »

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
109 Flaps
« Reply #86 on: January 21, 2006, 10:38:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by hogenbor
I can remember a heated thread where people stated that it was physically impossible even for a 262 to break the sound barrier. I am not in a position to comment on that as I don't understand the physics nearly well enough.

The myth that a F-86 broke the sound barrier first (before the X-1) is more credible, but it seems that Bell and Yeager don't want their thunder stolen, even after all these years. But if I'm not mistaken the F-86 was capable of it, in a dive of course.


Planes like the Me 262, Me 163. P-80 and P-84 simply generated too much drag to exceed Mach 1.0. Even in a vertical dive, at full throttle. Aero loads due to drag were sufficient to damage and even destroy these aircraft. The latter two had laminar flow wing designs, which delayed the drag rise a bit, but could not limit it enough.

Welch's forays above Mach 1 were due to the XP-86 being designed as a transonic aircraft. North American knew that with adequate thrust, the design was capable of speeds up to Mach 1.18 in a dive. They informed the USAAF of this early in 1947. When the USAAF officially became the USAF in 9/47, the Secretary of the Air Force notified North American that they were not to push the XP-86 up to transonic speeds until the XS-1 (later renamed X-1) had accomplished its mission of exploring transonic flight. Their primary reason for this was that they did not want to put their experimental budget at risk. Why would Congress authorize big allocations of money when a production prototype could be used for much of the same research? Added to this was the fact at Larry Bell was a close personal friend of Truman. Bell had been informed that the XP-86 should be able to break the "sound barrier" in a slight dive and immediately went to see the President. Truman promised Bell that the Bell XS-1 would get the first shot at supersonic flight, and actually dictated a letter to the Air Force stating that this is what he desired.

USAF documents for the XP-86 program show a chart ordered prepared by Al Boyd for the purpose of keeping the XP-86 at subsonic speeds until the XS-1 had accomplished its purpose for existing. This chart was issued to USAF test pilot Ken Chilstrom, who was to fly the Phase II flight program after the plane was handed over by North American. It was North American that managed and flew the Phase I program, with George Welch at the controls.



One problem for the Air Force was that it had no control over what non-government corporations did. North American agreed to this request in the belief that the XS-1 would be ready for a record run before the XP-86 was completed. However, due to handling issues and an extremely cautious flight schedule, the XS-1 program was creeping along at a snail's pace. Rocket motors were taking longer to develop than expected as well. Any chance that the XS-1 would win the race evaporated when the XS-1 experienced trim problems. Yeager ran out of trim adjustment at Mach .94. This required a major change to the plane that allowed North American to get the XP-86 into the air two weeks before the XS-1 could go for the record.

On its first flight (10/1/47), the XP-86 exceeded Mach 1 when to satisfy his own inner urge, Welch ignored the USAF directive, departed from the flight card and rolled the XP-86 into a dive. It is estimated that the XP-86 attained Mach 1.04 during the dive. Welch repeated this again on October 14th, roughly 60 minutes before Yeager and the XS-1 was released from its B-29 mothership for its first full power run, being the first to exceed Mach 1 in level flight (the XS-1 was actually climbing slightly).

In 2001, the USAF backhandedly acknowledged Welch's flights by officially changing their claim for Yeager and the XS-1 as being the first to exceed Mach 1 IN LEVEL FLIGHT.

For the full story of these events, find a copy of Aces Wild, written by retired North American test pilot, Al Blackburn. Released in 1999, published by Scholarly Resources.

You can also read my review blurb on the dust jacket.. ;)

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: January 21, 2006, 12:26:26 PM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9351
109 Flaps
« Reply #87 on: January 21, 2006, 12:16:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing
You can also read my review blurb on the dust jacket.. ;)

Thanks, Widewing, had never heard this story.

- oldman

Offline justin_g

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 260
109 Flaps
« Reply #88 on: January 22, 2006, 02:20:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by niklas
Also some german pilots claimed that they exceeded 1000km/h in dives with the 109, in the 190 on a regular basis. Afaik this was the reason why the 109 dive tests were made.

niklas


"Test Pilots" by Wolfgang Spate has a chapter on those dive trials, performed by Lukas Schmid.

In this chapter, Schmid mentions a report released in winter 1942 that stated there had been 20 fatal accidents in the 109G in two months, all involving dives from high altitudes.(afaik these sort of accidents were not unique to the 109, but all fighter aircraft at the time)

In January 1943 the dive trials were ordered:
Quote
The internal orders for the flight tests were registered under Nr.109 05 E 43 and briefly said: 'First: Investigation and clearing of accidents. Over-correction of the aileron and insufficient effect of the elevator at higher Mach numbers. Second: Proof of stability of the Me 109 Wk. Nr. 9228 at high Mach numbers.'

Offline justin_g

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 260
109 Flaps
« Reply #89 on: January 22, 2006, 02:47:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
If you check out the POH dive speeds the Spitfire was rated too, it was unremarkable.  Both German fighters could outdive it substantially at lower altitudes.


Me 109E dive speed: 750km/h(466mph)

Spitfire II dive speed: 450mph

Me 109G-6 dive speeds:
0-4km = 750km/h(466mph)
4-5km = 700km/h(435mph)
5-7km = 600km/h(373mph)
7-9km = 500km/h(311mph)

Spitfire IX dive speeds:
0-20,000ft = 450mph
20-25,000ft = 430mph
25-30,000ft = 390mph
30-35,000ft = 340mph
35,000ft+ = 310mph

Spitfire XIV dive speeds:
0-20,000ft = 470mph
20-25,000ft = 430mph
25-30,000ft = 390mph
30-35,000ft = 340mph
« Last Edit: January 22, 2006, 02:55:28 AM by justin_g »